f) long-term, having a large class of unemployed, under-employed, and broke, hungry, shiftlesslumpenproletariatis how revolutions start. Middle classes do not revolt. This year has seen the biggest targeted wipeout of the middle class, worldwide, and shifting them to the lower class, than anything since the Great Depression. And we're still in the early innings of it, as COVID2.0 now appears to be clearing its throat.
g) That's before the blatant disenfranchising of a third of the adults in this country by the most ham-fistedly blatant electoral fraud (outside of every election in Central America, ever) in living memory.
Yup. You should go read the whole thing. And it's been a while since I posted this: New Gingrich on what the Second Amendment is really about. It's long, but really gets rolling at about 5 minutes in. Newt's point is exactly the same one that Aesop makes.
The Continental Congress was an unauthorized, unsanctioned, unlawful, treasonous, and seditious assembly, and every man-jack of them were eventually targeted for arrest and hanging.
Some ideas survive election cycles. This one is from the last election cycle. You know - the one where the GOP dude would have given us more gun control? But what I said back then about Newt is perennially green:
There are many things that I do not like about Newt, but one advantage
that he has over the entire GOP crowd is that he knows how to deflate
the Democrat's ideology, to show not that it is mistaken, but that it is
immoral. Four years of that hammer will leave the political
discussion in this country profoundly different. The Republic needs
that, and someone who will not flinch from repeatedly telling the
opposition that they hate the poor:
It's the same conflict of visions. Today's UK is profoundly different
than it was in 1979, because the Iron Lady refused to back down in the
face of a left - unions, the media, the universities - that held her in
withering contempt. By returning that contempt with equal fervor and
backing it up with unarguable facts, she wrenched the Realm off of the
track to ruin, to the point that "Red" Ken Livingston is a curiosity,
and not the head of the Labour Party.
So who will fight this fight this today? Which GOP candidate will attack their world view? Who is the Hammer of the Progressives?
Sadly, to ask the question is to answer it. What's been on offer has not inspired us.
Boy, the establishment hates his guts. And he's polling so well that he's the front runner. These two issues are joined at the hip, as the bulk of the American people despise the establishment. Trump's candor and forthrightness (well, so far at least) cut through the clutter and resonates with regular people.
This analysis isn't anything new - you've heard it already. You've also heard that people like him because he fights - he doesn't back down, issue phony "sorry if anyone was offended" apologies. He's the 2015 version of Newt Gengrich.
Newt did the same thing - see how he instantly rejects the premise of the question? Notice that the audience cheers this rejection even before he has elaborated on his single word answer? Notice how when pressed, be unleashes a smackdown on his hapless questioner? See how the audience cheers, to the point that you have trouble hearing the moderator try to segue to a commercial break?
Trump does that. The other Republican candidates should be nervous about the first debate with Trump, because The Donald will basically ignore them and simply trash the establishment media moderators. The audience will love it.
Just like Newt did.
And just like Newt, he will have a metric ton of contradictory past statements that will leave everyone wondering if they can trust him. Me, I don't trust him - not at all.
But you know what? I'm getting a bunch of emails from smart people saying they like what they hear from him. And unlike Newt, Trump can fund his own campaign. He doesn't care that the panicked GOP establishment just dropped $120 Million into Jeb's coffers.
This is getting interesting. In a very end-of-the-Roman-Republic sort of way. Me, I'm getting some popcorn, because this is fixin' to get good. The circus is entertaining, and the bread is free.
You don't have to listen to all of this, or believe that Newt was the savior, but he expresses why his way is a better way. Mitt was all about "I'm not Obama". How'd that work out for him?
Santorum's out, and Newt hasn't a prayer, so now it really is down to Mittens vs. TheOne. Yeah, yeah, R0N P4uL!!!! Like I said, it's Mittens or TheOne.
Decision time.
Here are some things to keep in mind as you choose the form of the Destructor:
1. The Economy won't get much better, no matter which of these doofuses plants his seat in the Oval Office. It's regulation that's killing this country's economy, and Mittens is a not-quite-as-big-government as Barry. A Romney administration will preside over a continued sputtering and no job growth, and all the "green shoots" that the Press so hopefully reports on will oddly disappear next January 20 if Mitt wins.
2. For most people, the issue is jobs. If Romney wins, the Press will be nothing but "Jobless Recovery" (remember that from 2004?) for the next 4 years. Without job growth, that will stick, and we very well may see Romney turned out after four years.
3. A Romney administration is no chip shot for Supreme Court nominees. Ignore that given a chance he's likely to show his true G. H.W. Bush colors and appoint another Souter; if it looks like he might lose, the liberal justices might just stagger on for another four. A Democratic successor to Romney might appoint as many as five Justices in his first term. That would be a record since George Washington's time.
4. Mush from the wimp. Stick a fork in him, he's done. The Obama campaign is ruthless, and what people have so far been interpreting as Mitt's steadiness is in reality ripe to be exploited by the Democrats. Turn out the lights, the party's over ...
5. The action that counts is in the House and Senate races, but the action that really counts is almost over - running challengers against the too-comfortable Republican fat cats that don't care about what happens to the country as long as they get their chairmanships and earmarks. Right now, confidence is not high.
A bunch of folks are posting about the Judge who seems to think that using precedent from other countries that insulting Islam is a crime, some how isn't an establishment of Religion. Everyone is pretty exercised with this guy, as they should be.
I left a comment at Old NFO's place saying that this is a Judge who shouldn't be drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers. I didn't make up that line, I got it here:
The part directly applicable starts at about 5:20, but the whole thing is worth watching. Newt is inconsistent, and seems undisciplined as often as not. But when he's on his game - as he is here - he shows that he is the only one who can take the true battle to the opposition: to show not just that their policy is wrong, but that it is fundamentally immoral.
What is it that is best? To crush your enemy's ideology, to see it driven from the airwaves, and to hear the lamentation of his Professors.
Romney won't do this. Ron Paul tries, but can't make it understandable to the mass of the voters. Santorum doesn't try. There's your field: inconsistent, missing in action, incoherent, and hors de combat. But make no mistake - this is a battle of ideologies, not personalities.
Newt said a while back that there were ideas that are as clear as 2 + 2 = 4. This is one of those, as simple and compelling as I've heard from a politician in a long, long time. Legal Insurrection said that Newt filmed it in one take, with no notes or teleprompter - just a step-by-step assembly of logic that is basically irrefutable.
It's long - almost 30 minutes - but this is big, important stuff.
You cannot blow a prediction as badly as Russ Feingold blew his. Newt described the motivations to perfection - quite frankly, there's really nothing more to say about the left wing of the Democratic Party other than what Christopher Hitchen would have said: they are frivolous.
I must confess that I am a bit twisting in the wind on Newt. I think that he gets it. I'm not convinced that he can focus the country on where it needs to go, which is devolution at home and clarity abroad. There is perhaps a Shakespearian Tragedy to be written about Newt. Act the First is the 1990s; Act the Second is the 2010s.
Predictions are hard, especially about the future. Ten years from now, I'd be happy if my predictions had weathered the passing of a decade as well as these. We still won't talk about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Newt and Christopher Hitchens on the War on Terror, from July 2002. Ron Paul should listen to this. Twice.
Woodie Guthrie was a Red - he lived in the "Red Hill" district of Los Angeles in the 1930s (a neighborhood notorious for the concentration of radicals), and wrote a column for the Communist Party's Daily Worker newspaper. He was a reliable Red, willing to be an apologist for the U.S.S.R.'s non-aggression pact with Hitler.
All that changed on June 1, 1941, as Operation Barbarossa saw the Nazi supermen storming across the border into Guthrie's Mother Russia. He took some paint and wrote on his guitar: This machine kills fascists.
It's probably unfair to blame him for not recognizing that fascists fought on both sides of the Eastern Front. Stalin paid lip service to the Socialist Dialectic, and the West's Useful Idiots (like Guthrie) let him get away with it, but the U.S.S.R. was fascist in all but name. Non-Russians were second class citizens (as the population on Ukraine found out to their sorrow), the State controlled everything, and above all was the all-seeing, all-powerful fuhrer (well, General Secretary).
But Woodie knew how to get an idea popularized, and did.
We live today in a political world that people from Woodie's time simply wouldn't recognize. The growth in the Leviathan State is steam rolling all before it - the War on (some) Drugs is crushing the Fourth Amendment, Kelo v. New London crushed the Fifth Amendment, Medicare is killing the Tenth Amendment. Obamacare is killing the First Amendment. The Second Amendment has - for now - fought off a series of restrictions from 1968 through 1994 that sought to kill it. That battle is still raging.
On one side of those battles stand the People, trying to protect their rights as recognized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. On the other side are the fascists*, seeking to establish the Leviathan State above all. Everything within the State; nothing outside it. Thankfully without all the boxcar and Concentration Camp drama, but fascists nonetheless.
Both Dinosaur political parties are allied in the fascist struggle. With the exception of the lack of furherprinzip (the embodiment of the People's Will in the person of a strong leader) and the lack of nationalism as an organizing principle (the two parties are somewhat divergent here, but only somewhat), all the fascist principles are prominent:
Subordination of industry to political direction (Sarbanes-Oxley, Military Industrial Complex, Solyndra)
Subordination of the People to political direction (public education, TSA, NDAA, No Child Left Behind)
Subordination of independent organizations to political direction (McCain-Feingold, Obamacare)
The system is not Socialist - the Government does not own the means of production, nor does it want to. What it wants is for industry to fall into line, doing what it's told in return for favors and avoidance of punishment. What the Government wants is for us to fall into line, doing what we're told in return for favors and avoidance of punishment. What the Government wants is for independent organizations to fall into line, doing what they're told in return for favors and avoidance of punishment.
That system is fascist.
I'm afraid that I'm not big on the "compliance" part of this, and so must respectfully** decline our Governmental Overlord's offer. And so, I'm going Woodie Guthrie. I'd like to invite all y'all to join me.
This blog kills fascists, by pointing out who they are, what they do, and who it hurts. This Land is your land and my land - not their land. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, despite the best efforts of the fascists to take them away. And so, here are the fascists:
Fascist. Obamacare, gun running to Mexican Drug Lords (to blame American Gun Stores), nationalizing the auto industry, targeting Americans for execution without trial. In 2008 he was looking like he had that furherprinzip swagger down pat; fortunately, that looks like it's a bit stale.
Fascist. Romneycare, politics of personal destruction (negative campaigning), "saved" the Olympics by getting a huge Government bailout. Buddies with Ted Kennedy. Also more gay than Twilight, and so might be our first gay fascist President.
Fascist. Couch potato with Nancy Pelosi to get Cap 'n' Tax passed. Talks a Freedom Agenda but is happy to "go along to get along". Balanced the budget by cleverly causing the Internet bubble and convincing 50 year old Boomers not to retire. Kind of too bad, because many of his ideas are strongly compelling from a personal libery perspective. But actions speak louder than Youtube clips.
Fascist. What, you need it spelled out? Seriously? OK, big Government, big spender, wants to meddle in your personal business. No friend of Fourth or Tenth Amendments, at the very least.
Not a fascist. He may be a Wookie, but he's the only non-fascist on offer here. Of course that means that he doesn't have a chance as both political parties will unite to crush him. He doesn't stand much chance, but is doing his part like Woodie Guthrie did, getting the message out.
The Tea Party? Might be fascist, might not be. Might get coopted by the fascists in the future. There's a lot of money in fascist government, if you're the government. Time will tell.
So what does all this mean? It means that we need to get the message out, to sing the message from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream Water. The chains may sit lightly upon you (for now), but chains they are. It was Woodrow Wilson (perhaps the first fascist President) who laid it out, starkly:
Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.
Sorry, no thanks. Keep your nose out of my business. I'll keep singing the anti-fascist song, thank you very much. I'll call them for what they are, as we all need to: Fascists. Nice fascists (maybe), but fascists nonetheless. Both parties.
Feel free to use the image, and sing the song. This land was made for you and me.
* Before anyone freaks out, I guess I need to point out (again) that you can be a fascist without gassing Jews and that sort of thing. Mussolini (the Father of Fascism) didn't. Franco didn't. Peron didn't. Oh, yeah - FDR didn't, although he did put Japanese-Americans in Concentration Camps. But they were nice Concentration Camps, and FDR was a God Among Men. A fuhrer, you might say. That's what they teach in school.
** OK, that was sarcasm. Nothing respectful at all there, actually.
The Czar of Muscovy brings some good points about the election (although I'd like him to show his work a bit more; then again, I'm an amateur quant). Alas, I'm not sure that I quite agree with his conclusions. First, to the easy bit:
1. He is entirely correct that Romney would make a much better (not to mention less dangerous) POTUS than Obama II.
2. He is entirely correct that Romney would likely make a better POTUS than either Santorum or Gingrich, although they would either of them be an upgrade from Obama II.
3. He is correct that a Republican Congress will be hard pressed to restrain Obama II, and that Congress may even flip back Democratic in 2014.
Here's the problem: it's not Obama, it's Obama's world view. He's just particularly ruthless in pushing it aggressively. Obama isn't alone: he has the entire Intelligentsia on his side, the MSM, the European Elites, the international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). They're all in the same tribe, which believes that things should be run by them, with a strong, interventionist government in charge (run by them, 'natch), and with the peons givering deference where it's due (to them, 'natch).
Romney's in that tribe. So's Newt, and probably Santorum. And 60% of the Republican Party. Only Ron Paul explicitly rejects that world view.
Essentially, it's the Blue State model - although we need to recognize that all of Europe is deeper Blue than even Massachusetts. Here's the crisis: the Blue model is collapsing.
It's falling apart all over the world as the State finds that it's spent too much on the wrong things, and that buying off the proles to keep them in line has gone as far as it can. There has been massive deficit spending for a long time, and now whole chunks of the Progressive Edifice are simply starting to fall off - indeed, Greece will leave the Eurozone in a matter of months, declare a massive default on their government bonds (likely losing 80% of their nominal value), and return to the Drachma.
Of course, then there will be no more deficit spending (who on earth would buy their bonds?) and the Blue Paradigm will join the Aeropagus as obscure Greek history trivia. Greece, of course, will be joined by others in Europe, and the United States. What's the over/under on when Illinois defaults on their State bonds? California?
The problem with the GOP is that they have been junior members of the Blue tribe for the past quarter century. The crises of the next four years are crises of this Blue model:
Social spending (entitlements) approaching 80% of government revenue.
Trillion dollar a year deficits as far as the eye can see.
Slow business investment due to massive uncertainties (tax policy and the strength of the financial markets will play a major role here).
Most importantly, you will have the Paul Krugmans of the world telling us that the obvious answer is more of what got us to this point, only bigger. You'll have an Intelligentsia that, while likely less wedded to the success of Obama in 2013 (hey, they got him re-elected, right?) won't be ready to declare the defeat of their Statist world view.
So the question is, who is the best man for the job of POTUS, if our long term goals are (a) change this Blue world view to something sane) and then (b) fix entitlements before we join Greece?
I think that the answer is that we want Barack Obama to be in the Oval Office as the Blue Model comes crashing down.
You see, Romney will roll up his sleeves and try to fix things, but his fixes are likely to be at least a little sane, and so he'll get savaged by the Intelligentsia saying Paul Krugman sez we need a 3 Trillion dollar stimulus!!eleventy!
And so when the bottom inevitably falls out, Romney will take the blame, not Obama. And we'll go back for another round of Blue Model on steroids, because nobody will want to trim Social Security and everyone will be invested in stupid Romney screwed everything up.
If the O-Man is there another 4, they won't have this - particularly if he rules via regulation, not legislation (as is entirely likely).
And so, we have no chance to survive, until the Left decides that maybe this isn't such a good idea. If we're lucky, they'll figure this out as Europe and a couple States crater but the rest stagger on.
My view is that we are better off (long term) taking the massive hit that will be another Obama term, getting it over with, and then picking up the pieces of the collapsed Blue (Democrat and GOP) statist model. We need to make our time, or perhaps Zig for Great Justice.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.
I figure that I'll beat the rush and call it now. The Republican Establishment has proven that they really are the Stupid Party and have handed the election to Obama. They may have jeopardized the House and Senate as well.
Consider 2008. If Republican voter turnout had been what it was in 2004, we'd be talking about President McCain's reelection campaign. People looked at what the GOP establishment put on offer, decided that it was Bob Dole 2.0, and stayed home.
Consider the recent Florida GOP primary, and Mitt's "great victory". Every county that Mitt won had a lower voter turnout than in 2008; every county that Newt won had a higher turnout than in 2008. Every one. (Can't find link, but you'll see more about this over the next few days)
Consider South Carolina. Turnout wasn't just up from 2008, it was way up from 2008. Newt won. Turnout in Florida was way down from 2008. Romney won. The numbers are actually stunning. In politics, they're about the only thing that doesn't lie.
And so to the GOP Establishment and Mitt's "electability" - yes, Newt's negatives are higher nationally (after Newt tried running a positive campaign focused on Obama in Iowa and Mitt buried him with negative ads). Yes, Mitt's negatives are much lower - but the press hasn't yet started in on him (they're keeping their powder dry) and Obama will do to him what he just did to Newt with negative ads.
And a bunch of people are looking at him as the man with no core, with no agenda other than getting elected, and they're fixin' to stay home in November. In their millions:
The Tea Party is a collection of people who felt compelled to transition from citizens to activists in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. Many sacrifice time away from family, work, and life in a desperate attempt to save the nation they love, from their perspective. My concern is that the Tea Party will recoil from supporting a Republican Party that is headed by John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney.
...
The Republican presidential stakes kicked in, and Rebecca engaged. Her hopes rise with Rick Perry's entrance, but then "he gets hammered for stupid things, and drops." She thought about Herman Cain, "but his lack of campaign management was disconcerting." She never really thought Bachmann would make it to Florida, and says "Erick Erickson has educated me too much to cast a vote for Rick Santorum." She considers Ron Paul's views right on a number of accounts, but thinks his foreign policy is "crazy."
"So here I am, supporting Newt Gingrich," Rebecca says. "I'm not in love with Newt, but I trust him more to stay true to conservative ideals. The guy pushed Clinton right, for goodness sake. I only trust Mitt to stay true to himself."
So, Rebecca, about Mitt: why not Romney this time?
"I don't trust him, and I don't think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it's nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn't very much to make in a year," Rebecca said. "I don't begrudge him his wealth - he worked for it and earned it and that is admirable. But I hate his lack of awareness of how super-wealthy he is. His flip-flops are legendary."
"Oh, and he invented Obamacare."
Mitt and the GOP establishment are making a huge gamble that the voters who caused the historical sweep in 2010 will take any crap sandwich they offer up. Vote for Mittens, or the Republic gets it.
But they're not just betting the Oval Office, they're betting all the House and Senate seats as well. If two million people decide to just stay at home, that not only leaves Obama in the White House, it leaves Harry Reid as Majority Leader and may even put Nancy Pelosi back in as Speaker. Because those two million voters won't be casting ballots for Republicans in the down seat races either.
And so, the question is why would they do this?
The only reason that makes sense is that the GOP is owned lock, stock, and barrel by powerful political interests determined to keep the government feeding them non-competitive rents - like the incandescent light bulb ban that means we'll pay twice as much money for bulbs. That was passed by the Republicans, remember.
And so, people will stay home. I may actually vote - for Obama. At least when he's grotesquely expanding government and driving the economy off a cliff, he'll be happy about it. I don't expect that I'm the only one. Heck, I may even vote in the Georgia primary and write "Obama" in - that might even make the news.
All you people saying "get Obama out at all costs" and "Romney is the electable candidate" are, I'm afraid, sadly mistaken. Romney is Mr. 25%. The base can't stand him. He's a dirty campaigner. He has no core - he's so hollow that if you tapped him he'd "ping". When the Independents learn what he's all about (and make no mistake - the Press and the Democrats will make sure they learn), he's toast.
Other than that, he's awesome. He's just going to take the whole party down with him. At least that way, the Tea Party and Opposition will stay energized during the next four years. And the business interests controlling the GOP establishment? They'll do just fine buying sweet, sweet government imposed rents from the Obama Administration. And right now they're trying to panic you with a "Vote for Romney Or Else" story. Yeah, it's maybe a good time to panic.
Good grief, I sound like a tin foil hatter. Anyone want to point out where I went wrong, please go ahead. This is seriously bad juju, and I'd be delighted to be wrong. I just don't think that I am.
This great country, which I love, and which you love, and which we love together; which I love because you love; God Bless America.
Thank you, and good night.
Newt Gingrich:
Here are 19 great ideas that I should have come out with a month ago.Internet insurgency. Follow me on Twitter.
Rick Santorum:
Thanks for all your support for my daughter in the hospital [this was very touching - Borepatch]. Here's a bunch of stuff that will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
In short, the couch thing with Bela Pelosi: FAIL. The JohnKinging of the media (note how quickly that became a transitive verb): EPIC WIN.
And that, I think, is the point. Tired of taking it on the chin from rude, gibbering, little homunculi of the Left, and then being laughed at for wimps when making a measured and proportionate response, We in the Right have long demanded a more muscular response -- a retaliation... a punishing retaliation -- from our soi disant leaders.
Newt seems bent on giving that to us, in word and in deed -- without much regard to what may be drudged up out of his record to smear him with.
And that is why he is liked by the groundlings.
Yeah. It's like Lincoln's reply when the Union Military Elite told him to get rid of Grant early in the war: I can't spare him. He fights.
But that got me thinking (as Mark is wont to do), and I went to leave a comment over there. Unfortunately, I'm not registered or something, and so can't leave a comment. And so I'll inflict it on you:
I recall that scene in Tombstone, where Val Kilmer says "It's not Revenge he wants. It's a Reckoning."
That's what the Tea Party is about. That's what the anybody-but-Romney crowd is about. I dare say that's what your post was about.
So if Romney gets the nomination, when comes the Reckoning? Because come it will.
People are fixated on get Obama out of office at all cost. They're missing the Reckoning:
And so we come yet again to the stupidity and short sightedness of the Elites. Do they really not see the Reckoning, after the rallies and election of 2010? Really? If they really ram Slick Willard down everyone's throats, do they not inflame this feeling, rather than tamping it down?
And then I think on how the Elite is handling the financial crisis in Europe, where reasonable changes early would likely have defused the situation. But those changes would have cost the Elite control, or money, or embarrassment, and so the Elite kept doubling down, hoping against hope to cheat their way through.
The GOP Establishment have lived up (down?) to the Progressive's scolding that we all need to be more like Europe. Watching this, it's the same incompetence, mixed with equal measures of arrogance and desperation. And so again: when comes the Reckoning, what happens? Does it sweep Ron Paul to power? Whatever it will be, it will be the more extreme for being thwarted so often in the past.
Partly this is a defense mechanism designed to protect the thinker from Unapproved Thought™, but mostly it's a means to enforce group-think and suppress intellectual challenge. As the Left - the institutions of the University, and Dinosaur Media, and Hollywood - have become the Establishment, this has been a very useful club for them to marginalize potential opposition.
The tropes are well known, if tired and boring: "Republicans are racist." "Republicans are sexist." "Republicans hate gays." "Republicans want the poor to starve in the street." "Republicans are warmongers."
1. "Jobs not food stamps" is insulting to Americans, especially minorities.
2. Janitorial work is demeaning, particularly to minorities.
3. Even speaking these thoughts is belittling to Americans, especially minorities.
Newt's reply is simply devastating: No, I don't [see that].
That - and his detailed explanation that follows - brings the crowd cheering to its feet. No, it's not insulting - the Obama administration has vastly increased the food stamp rolls. No, it's not demeaning - Newt's own daughter did that work as a youth. No, it's not belittling - only liberals think that getting paid money when you're poor is a bad thing.
All of these are, of course, entirely logical, but Politically Incorrect and therefore anathema to the Left. And so Williams - a fully paid up member of the Liberal Media (redundancy alert) is utterly incapable of replying.
He doesn't need the Conservatives, assuming that he gets the nomination - they'll crawl across broken glass to vote against Obama. They're sick of being told that they're racist, sexist, ignorant rednecks, clinging to their guns and religion and so this may be the path to the Nomination for Newt, but they'll likely hold their noses and vote for Romney if that's the choice.
And as long as the Left spouts nonsense ('"code" for racism') and as long as Newt keeps hammering away the way he did, he'll keep them listening. And this cunning plan isn't a new one, and I didn't think this up. I got it from Newt:
2 + 2 = 4. The 20% can't stand the Truth, which is why they try so hard to suppress it. The 40% is thirsting for someone to vigorously defend the Truth, and the 35% are willing to listen.
Will Newt be disciplined enough to do what Newt says? In the past, he frequently hasn't been. But the Oval Office is a big prize for one who - like Newt - has spent his life chasing that particular golden ring. The Establishment won't help him get there. The Media won't help him get there.
The Progressive ideology that so grips this Republic was not established over night. It will not be banished over night. But it is so over-extended, so wrapped up in desperate attempts to bend 2 + 2 = 4 to preserve its voting coalition that this is a rich target environment for anyone who will bring firepower to bear. Romney won't, because it's too risky (not to mention anti-establishment). Ron Paul actually is, and his support reflects this - but it's much too narrow a base, and he's a walking tl;dr*. People will tune him out.
Will Newt make a good President? I haven't the slightest idea. Certainly he won't do some things I'd like to see: end the War on (some) Drugs, and end the War on a Verb (end the Patriot Act all other "Terror" related things). If he stays focused on breaking the moribund Progressive ideology with simple, repeated 2 + 2 = 4, he'll go down as transformative - despite the expected flightiness, venality, and general piss everyone off that we can expect. If he can't do this, he simply won't win.
* No offense to Ron Paul, but I know tl;dr when I see it. Heck, I make a practice of it here. If you've actually read this far, you might follow Paul's arguments to their admittedly logical conclusion. The other 95% of the population won't.
George McClellan was in charge of the Army of the Potomac from July 1861 until November 1862. An able administrator, he turned the post-Bull Run Army of the Potomac from a rag tag mass of whipped militia into a professional fighting force. It's probably not going too far to say that he laid the foundation upon which the ultimate Union victory lay.
But he was cautious to a fault. While nicknamed "The Little Napoleon" (from his preferred poses for the new fangled photographers of the day), he refused to implement Napoleon's dictum for success on the battlefield: l'audace, l'audace. toujours l'audace!*
And so Robert E. Lee was able to play him like a fiddle. Lee took over command of the Army of Northern Virginia in June of 1862 when its former commander Joseph Johnston was wounded. Lee was not then held in high regard, his stock having fallen from its pre-war heights. Lee soon put that to rest. In a stunning series of tactical assaults called The Seven Days, Lee essentially lost eight battles in seven days, at which point McClellan loaded his entire army on naval transport and sailed back to Washington, defeated.
Lee wasn't attacking the Army of the Potomac, he was attacking McClellan. No matter how good an administrator and organizer McClellan was, he couldn't fight effectively.
Actually, that's not true - he was very effective in fighting his own organization, and especially his commander in chief. His insubordination was the least of it (he once kept Lincoln waiting 30 minutes when the President came to call, and then had Lincoln informed that he had gone to bed and couldn't see him). He wouldn't fight. There was always a reason why - he didn't have enough men, he didn't have enough supplies, the weather was bad. Lincoln once summoned a council of war of McClellan's generals - pointedly without McClellan himself - saying that if McClellan wasn't using the army he'd like to borrow it for a while.
Finally, McClellan went too far, and Lincoln fired him. Whether for revenge, or because of his weakness for flattery, he ran against Lincoln in the 1864 elections. Grant and Sherman won that for Lincoln. Unlike McClellan, they would fight.
Newt Gingrich just handed Mitt Romney his tail end, utterly demolishing the myth of Romney's inevitability. Watching this unfold, and looking at Romney's impressive organizational skills, his rich war chest, and his support from the entire GOP establishment, I cannot stop thinking about George McClellan reviewing the Army of the Potomac. Crisp new uniforms, polished brass, snappy salutes, and brave martial music from the marching bands made for a pretty - and a pretty impressive - sight.
It was a sight that contrasted with Ulysses S. Grant, whose appearance was slovenly, and whose personal faults almost lost him his command. Everyone in the Union Army establishment wanted to get rid of him in 1862. Everyone but Abraham Lincoln who said I can't spare him. He fights.
Ulysses S. Gingrich just won a lopsided victory against all odds. He did it because while he possesses many personal faults when compared to his opponent, he possesses one outstanding virtue.
He fights.
It's a long, long road to the Republican Convention, and anything can happen. It's hard to say who will be the nominee. But it's not at all hard to see the Obama Campaign attacking not the GOP, but their General should the timid and overly calculating Romney get the nod**. If Newt is the standard bearer, then it will be a real rumble.
Shelby Foote, in his incomparable history The Civil War: A Narrative writes about the Union Army after they had been thrashed at the beginning of the Wilderness Campaign in 1864. Dejected - they always knew that Bobby Lee drove them back after a single battle - they prepared to march back to Washington. Instead, the order came down the line to turn south. A cheer rose up, as men who had been whipped squared their shoulders and turned to chase their foe. That's the kind of leader Grant was.
That's the kind that Newt is, too.
To the surprise of the V Corps men, the march was south, in rear of Hancock's portion of the line. At first they thought that this was done to get them on the plank road, leading east towards Chancellorsville, but when they slogged past the intersection they knew that what they were headed for was not the Rapidan or the Rappahannock, but another battle somewhere south, beyond the unsuspecting rebel flank. Formerly glum, the column now began to buzz with talk. Packs were lighter; the step quickened, spirits rose with the growing realization that they were stealing another march on old man Lee. Then came cheers, as a group on horseback - "Give way, give way to the right," one of the riders kept calling to the soldiers on the road - doubled the column at a fast walk, equipment jingling. In the head was Grant, a vague, stoop-shouldered figure, undersized on Cincinnati, the largest of his mounts ...
McClellan looked ever so much more the General than did Grant. Romney looks ever so much more Presidential than Gingrich. But neither McClellan nor Romney would fight. The troops know it.
* Boldness, boldness, always boldness.
** Apologies to all true Sons and Daughters of Dixie for casting Obama in the role of Robert E. Lee.
First, Newt’s ex is an idiot. He was plugging her while he was married to wife #1, and suddenly she’s surprised when he treats his marriage to her with the same respect and reverence as he did wife #1? This is the same stupidity of Maria Shcriver being “unaware” that Arnie was impregnating the help. The dude was a wild cocksmith when he was courting her, and she thought she could tame that beast?
And that got me thinking. Where's a whole school of Country music for "done me wrong" songs. Case in point:
Why is her legal name still "Gingrich"? If what she says about him is true, she must have been mad as an ol' wet hen at him. Srlsy. So why didn't she change her name and be done with him.
I'm sympathetic to the "wronged woman" idea*, but come on. This is 15 minutes of fame, nothing more. Good thing that she isn't the wronged Mrs. ex-Obama, though, because then this would clearly not be newsworthy.
Prediction: nobody cares. Just as the public began suffering scandal fatigue during the Clinton years, the last few months of media hyperventilating over the scandal du jour is creating antibodies in the Body Public. If they really want to get people's attention, they probably should bring a real scandal.
I keep saying that this election is about a conflict of world views. Obama came into office determined to fundamentally change the country, reshaping it to match a strongly leftist philosophy. This is why it is such a danger to succumb to the "any Republican" (translation: Mitt Romney) trope that the establishment is trying to hammer down our throat.
Offered as Exhibit A in the case of the Republic vs. Big Government Republicans: George W. Bush. He ran as a "compassionate conservative", which means "I'll spend your money for you almost as fast as Al Gore would."
What's needed is to crush the leftist ideology. Not to show merely that it is wrong, but that it is illegitimate. Ron Paul gets that:
The problem with Paul is not that he's loopy on foreign policy, but that he's too much of the kindly old uncle, rambling his way to something that makes sense instead of hitting you between the eyes. He's a walking tl;dr, and his delivery is so laid back that half of the electorate will stop listening before he gets to his point.
Newt knows how to bring the ideas, hard, to where they make you stop and think. Here he shreds Juan Williams. His answer starts with a simple, blanket denial that he agrees with anything that Williams said. Then he takes 90 seconds to flay any legitimacy that anyone thought Williams' question might have had from the bone, and then chews the bone to small pieces. Williams is left utterly defeated, and the crowd is left on its feet in a standing ovation.
I realize that in Politically Correct circles it's not allowed to raise uncomfortable facts. That's not Reaganesque, it channels the best of Margaret Thatcher, breaking the British Labour party.
Crush your enemy's ideology. The crowd booed Williams. Booed. And this isn't just a one-off, either:
We actually think that work is good. But remember, the enemy ideology lives not just in the Democratic Party. George W. Bush's "Compassionate Conservativism" also falls under is icy glare.
Crush the enemy's ideology. See it driven from the airwaves. Listen to the lamentation of his professors. Newt does it, over and over.
Ron Paul does, too. But Paul is incoherent on foreign policy. That might not have made a difference in 2000, but it does in 2012. Newt brings the ideological hammer down:
Andrew Jackson had a good idea about what to do with America's enemies: kill them.
There are many things that I do not like about Newt, but one advantage that he has over the entire GOP crowd is that he knows how to deflate the Democrat's ideology, to show not that it is mistaken, but that it is immoral. Four years of that hammer will leave the political discussion in this country profoundly different. The Republic needs that, and someone who will not flinch from repeatedly telling the opposition that they hate the poor:
It's the same conflict of visions. Today's UK is profoundly different than it was in 1979, because the Iron Lady refused to back down in the face of a left - unions, the media, the universities - that held her in withering contempt. By returning that contempt with equal fervor and backing it up with unarguable facts, she wrenched the Realm off of the track to ruin, to the point that "Red" Ken Livingston is a curiosity, and not the head of the Labour Party.
Newt is probably the only one here who can do the same.
Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.
- Winston Churchill
UPDATE 19 January 2012 08:52: Thanks to Bob Owens for pointing out it was Juan Williams, not Juan Cole.
Priorities are important, and more importantly are good for you to think about. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. The process of thinking through the priority list is the only thing that will keep you from drifting on the currents of history.
During the drive back to FOB Borepatch, I had a lot of time to think. Just what is it that's most important about this election? What is it that's "must have", and what is it that's "nice to have"? What will make or break the next two decades? After all, Napoleon said that on any battlefield is a single decisive point. Anything that happens there is everything; anything that happens elsewhere is nothing. So what's the single point of decision on this electoral battlefield?
I think that it's the clash between two views. One side has been ascendant for decades, with a brief intermission during Ronald Reagan's first term. This side believes that experts should run things, that experts should make decisions, and that the population is too dim witted to be allowed much in the way of independent course of action. This takes the form of large government departments issuing vast reams of regulations, it takes the form of a "living" Constitution that means pretty much what the elite want, it takes the form of Congress passing hundreds of new felony laws each year, it takes the form of a large increase in the cost of government. Whether that is paid by you and me, or by our children, or by the "1%" is pretty much irrelevant to the overall world view. While individuals have their own preferences, the overall goal is centralization of power in the hands of a self-selected elite.
The other side is basically the traditional American philosophy of limited government, with enumerated powers granted by the People to the government. It's the American philosophy that was able to build the Empire State Building in 29 months and to build a two-ocean Navy and simultaneously beat the Nazi and Imperial Japanese supermen. It's the American philosophy that put a man on the moon and brought him home safely, all in the span of a decade. It's the American philosophy that did it not because it was easy, but because it was hard.
This is a conflict of world views, very much like the Cold War. Communism collapsed suddenly and completely, but for decades it looked like it might have been the side to bet on. The reason is that all the data that we could use to compare the performance of the West against the performance of the Warsaw Pact was cooked - by the commies. Reagan went very much against the conventional wisdom when he decided that we were going to win, and they were going to lose. Even the CIA thought that the USSR was the second or third most powerful economy. Reagan forced the issue, and the balloon popped, leaving the illegitimacy and incompetence of the system exposed for all to see.
So who will do this in 2012? Because that is the most important priority. The critical point on the battlefield is destroying the elite's image of competence, because without that, there's no justification for them to get more power. Everything else, while perhaps desirable, is irrelevant. So here's my scorecard for who's doing this right now.
Ron Paul
He's the most effective at this, so far. He may be crazy as a coot on foreign policy, he may be racist (unlikely) or incompetent (probably) with the newsletter thing, but he's by far the most effective in getting this message across: you should be the captain of your soul, not some self-important busybody. Even the apolitical #1 Son mentioned that he might vote for Ron. And quite frankly, there's no question whether Paul would slash the size and power of government. That clarity, in fact, is his biggest asset.
Newt Gingrich
Newt comes with a lot of baggage, part of which is a tendency to become a bit professorial. Not a surprise, as he was a professor, but we can be forgiven for being a little leery of another Professor-in-Chief. However, Newt understands that the battle is our world view vs. theirs. I've posted before on the ideas which cut through the elite vision, but this is a simply outstanding (if long) recitation on the Second Amendment's proper role in America's history, and of the respective roles of the citizen and the political elite. It's worth watching in full:
There is no question where he stands on this issue. There's no question as to whether he can flay the muscle from the bone of the elite world view of ever more centralized control.
Rick Perry
I expect that he understands the American vision. I'm not convinced that he can articulate it, or do more than delay the elite's power grabs until Europe is done collapsing. At that point, their world view takes a substantial - but perhaps not fatal - hit. In short, it's not clear that Perry is the right candidate to crush the elite's philosophy, and this is the point of decision.
Rick Santorum
Not going anywhere, despite his Iowa win/almost-win. He sold his platform with retail politics, going to thousands of meetings in 99 counties in Iowa over six months. He simply cannot do anything like that in the two weeks before New Hampshire, and then the next two until South Carolina.
He's a footnote, whether this is fair or not.
Whoever else
Whatever. Stick a fork in them.
Mitt Romney
Notice what Romney does not bring to his campaign? Anything that would undermine the mirage of elite competence. He is the elite, it's part of his image. While he likely would do less harm than Obama, he will leave the Elite Worldview entirely intact, and indeed will almost certainly aggressively expand its reach in some important ways.
Just as he did in Massachusetts with health care and the assault weapons ban.
Discussion
Both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have serious baggage to overcome. Perry less so, and Romney perhaps least of all (with the bulk of the electorate, at least). But this is not about tactical maneuvering, this is about crushing the opposition's ability to enact their agenda. Go back and watch the video of Newt on the Second Amendment, and listen to his last sentence. Paul would try to say that (and might succeed - although not so brilliantly), Perry would try (and very well might fail). Mitt wouldn't even try.
Multiply this by the other issues that all revolve around the way to share power between individuals or the elite, and you'll see the same thing: Ron Paul and Newt being the only ones forcefully attacking the very foundation of the elite's self image - not as just being wrong, but Reagan-like, attacking it as illegitimate. As being unworthy of a great nation.
On every battlefield is a single decisive point, and moment, when the enemy will be met and can be overthrown. Fear must be cast aside, and all possible force committed there and then, regardless of the cost elsewhere. Our enemy bases all on his sense of intellectual and moral superiority. That is the battle, to discredit that. Our advantage is that they are incompetent and arrogant, and have given many obvious examples of how they are unfit to rule over us.
That is the battle. That is what we must win, or we face the long, slow twilight of extinction, as an increasingly powerful elite drives us into subservience. Their smug but fragile egos must be crushed, utterly.
I'm not sure that Perry can do it. I know that Romney won't do it. Ron Paul and Newt may lose the election, but they can, Sampson-like, pull down the temple of Progressivism, leaving Obama too wounded to do much in four years before he, too, is gone. But if the elite worldview is mortally wounded, it will invigorate the Tea Party rebellion, invigorate a moribund Congress to oppose Obama's overreach, and set the stage for a 2016 sweep.
And who knows? Maybe Paul or Newt might win. But the battle is over this: individual power, or elite control. We faced down the Soviet Bear, at the cost of blood and treasure. Before that, we sent millions of G.I. across two oceans and darkened the sky with our air fleets. Abraham Lincoln kept firing Generals until he found some that would fight. History tells us that America can be hurt, but if we stay true to our heritage, and like in days past simply refuse to give up, we will come out right side up.
We just need a General that sees the decisive point on the battle field, and who will fight.
